Both of the latest comments that are meant for me touch upon more or less the same topic, so I’ll try make two different answers that will come off as one composition, and I would like the two of you take a look at both of the answers as my “one full answer”.

@ alechs_, by “lower class” I was referring to everyone else than the upper class. That means both the middle class and the working class, who constitute about 95% of the population, but still is marginalized by the upper class — who do their best to shape politics from their perspective, and make the rest of the population follow their view. I don’t mean to say that they are not political, they are, as you say, “highly political”. But there are certain barriers keeping them active from influencing policy. One of them, as you mentioned, is the fact that a factory worker who works the entire day, doesn’t have the time or the effort to political thinking when he/she gets home. This is part of what is called “distraction”. The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. Buying the new Mac, your favorite soccer team winning, or a new episode of a tv-show become more important than a what’s on the political agenda. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals”.

The working class along with the middle class obviously constitute a significant threat to the interests of the elite. One of the most important things is to give the people choices that don’t really make that much of a difference. In the United States you got two parties dominating the system. Two parties that both lean to the right, and that act for big business (corporations and the rich) — the one more than the other. Policy-making of the governments in the western countries in general, and especially in the US, is a reflection of the policy of big business. The Republicans and the Democrats both represent the decision-making of large corporations, only that the latter is dominated by opportunistic candidates like Obama and Clinton, who assert their support for the poorest half, but who in reality get nothing or almost nothing done.

@ Nat

This is as far away from conspiracy theory as you think. If I’m analyzing a private enterprises and I point out that a corporation tries to maximize profit, and does it by helping destroying social rights, that’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s analysis. It’s in that sense I talk about a media: as a power driven by market forces. Walter Lippmann, who pioneered the theory of propaganda, noted himself that “the manufacture of consent”, the establishment of agreement of the population through what was then called ‘thought control’ (the definition later changed to ‘propaganda’, and then to ‘public relations’ in official and formal positions) as a revolution of democracy. Because in his opinion the majority didn’t have the capacity to deal with politics, they were a “bewildered herd” and had to be the domain of the “specialized class”, who truly knew what was right:

“the common interests elude public opinion entirely, and can only be understood and managed by a specialised class of responsible men who are smart enough to figure things out.”

It’s not the case that indoctrination/propaganda is contradictory to democracy, as you might think. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers and decision- makers observe, it is essential in a democracy. The point is that in an authoritarian state or a totalitarian state, it doesn’t matter what the people thinks, because the dictator has a club that he can hit them with to make them do what he wants. But when the state loses the club, when you can’t control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard you have a problem. That’s where the importance and sophistication of democracy comes in. This is something that has been recognized by state leaders all the way back to the first real existence of modern democracy in England in the 17th century. Power over the people was lessening, and something, argued the elites, needed to be done. As they put it, the people are becoming “so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit to civil rule”.

“Therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest day’s used to be called propaganda, manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusion. Various ways of either marginalizing the public or reducing them to apathy in some manner”-

I have only given you an explanation of the reason for propaganda do exist. How it works can’t be explained through a single comment. That’s why Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman devoted an entire book to this topic. the Popaganda Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model), which they present in their book has 5 subcategories for their study:

1. Ownership of the medium
2. Medium’s funding source
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. Ant-communist ideology (which the authors in the revised additions changed to War on Terrorism).

Read to book rather than listening to me. You get nothing out of what I have to say, except bits and pieces, compared to the information they present in their book.

I think I’m starting to understand La Menthe’s point, though it seems overstated: A massive conspiracy, headed by the politically powerful, the media, and commerce, aims to keep people apathetic toward politics; therefore, since you do not recognize a political bias in ZD30, it is proof that such a bias exists.

Why does it always have to be a conspiracy? Can’t we just acknowledge that some people, regardless of their social class, are capable of thinking on their own and may choose apathy of their own free will?

I disagree with your description of the lower class… by which I assume you mean the working class? The working class are highly political but not in the ways commonly associated with the middle class. They simply don’t have the leisure time to engage in debates or rallies. I would think they are a demographic where politics are in their best interests because economic policies (particularly austere neo-liberal ones) directly effect them. I don’t want to patronize the working class but I don’t think they are apathetic to politics. Your description is more in line with lethargic middle class sensibilities who have the time and money to indulge extensively in mindless consumerism and are cushioned from political consequences.

@30 “we are all political beings”

I am not sold on this idea myself but while we are political beings, not everything is inherently politicized.

@18 “Also, your comment about being liberals is confusing. Wouldn’t liberals be the ones who disagree with what happens in the movie and the methods used. I would agree that I probably lean liberal but I certainly don’t define myself by politics.”

One aspect that one has yet touched upon is how distant the audience is not only from the Islamic terrorist but also the CIA. The fact that all of ZD30 is contained within an environment outside of North America alienates the reason why torture is being carried out. The audience should feel ‘I am responsible for this’ during the waterboarding scene. Freedom comes at a price. Democracy works because of slavery. These are how things work in this world. How some audience can condemn the CIA without feeling guilt is another way ZD30 is liberal propaganda. The CIA are dark and complex but also scapegoats.

To counter ZD30’s torture scene would be Mark Walhberg’s interrogation in Three Kings (an anti-war film in its own right). Instead of alienating the audience from Saïd Taghmaoui, they, like Walhberg, begin to see from his perspective and understand why he’s angry. Now that’s art.

@29 “why is no one calling Argo American propaganda?”

Argo’s a joke. It is so unaware of itself that calling it propaganda wouldn’t even be worth it.

yes, absolutely.

could be a love story set during a war with a sad ending, a happy ending, or anything in between.
well, maybe i’m wrong there.. because any love story (take romeo and juliet) would be ab initio anti-war.
but i’m positive such movies exist.

i do think though that ZD30 is not neutral – regardless of its stance on war.

Still, I think there’s a difference between an anti-war movie and a movie that is neither pro nor anti-war.

i disagree. platoon; steel helmet; big red one; fixed bayonets;
not to forget the best (anti)war movie ever: all quiet on the western front – made in hollywood, 1930.

i know what you’ll say “why it figures, sam fuller and oliver stone – anybody else?” ..that’s plenty. it’s because i have these that i can now ask for seconds.

i was actually about to, but i’d have to give it another watch (you can’t rely on internet’s opinion, you’d fail for shure). right now, i couldn’t care less about ben affleck’s great & forgettable flick

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Sure, most American movies are propaganda just by the mere fact that they are made by Americans and told from an American point of view. I think that goes without saying, but I think to expect anything different is a little bit unfair.

As for the idea that I was calling you a sheep; I was afraid you would see it as that. The point I was trying to make was that we are all political beings, but that the majority of us, at least those of us living in western democracies, are subjected to the kind of sophisticated elite-representative propaganda that is described by Noam Chomsky and Edward. S Herman in Manufacturing Consent (there is a documentary about this film with the same name, which I highly recommend you to check out). We (this includes myself) are indoctrinated from birth to a form of apathy when it comes to politics, directed to accept whatever political landscape the mass media presents upon us. The massive amount of resources used to make us devoted consumers has also turned politics into a commercial sphere, where presidential candidates in the US are sold as toothpaste. Entertainment (or “art”, which is a better description) combining itself with party-line views of the powerful is a part of this. And that includes ZD30, and probably also Argo.

Argo hasn’t arrived in Norway yet (and I will update you on it as soon as I do), and my interest for the subject is equally as important as ZD30. I believe its historical narrative is unrelated to its relevancy, as the film serves as a subject to modern-day American relations with Iran. There are many issues with the hostage-crisis that I doubt Affleck would even care to mention, and I can’t wait to write an angry, reactionary essay piece that I’m going to hand over to you the day I see the film! =P

Besides, I think you insulted me first by implying that my lack of interest in politics makes me a simple-minded sheep, but I’ll try not to take it personally. And in my experience, a lot of people do indeed define themselves by their politics, and they just parrot off what they think they’re supposed to say, which is why I find it useless to even discuss.

To get back on track, here’s a question: why is no one calling Argo American propaganda? Is it just because the event happened so long ago that no one cares anymore?